>I think you are selling Nikon short. You are also >characterizing a significant segment of Nikon's market as form >over function buyers. In my experience with Nikon this has >never been the case. At each model interval there have been >good, solid, intelligent reasons to stay within a certain >'class' of body. And the reasons have always been more than >some feeling of superiority from buying a camera that was >nothing but more expensive than the next model down. > >We'll see, but as yet there is absolutely no reason to suspect >that Nikon will release a D300 successor that will not be >compelling to current D300 (and D200) owners for good, >substantial reasons. And if they do, the D7000 will be a >fabulous camera for us to upgrade to.
Perhaps I am selling Nikon short, but I am basing this on history.
When the 300s was released (a full year after the D90 and 2 years after the D300) they essentially took the D300 and put the D90's video in it, added a SD card slot, 1 FPS (over the 300) and a couple buttons and sold tons of them for $500 more than a D300 and $800 more than a D90. These are not exactly revolutionary changes, they left most of the camera untouched including using an old sensor, AF unit and meter in the D300s. That is with 2 years to develop something new. It would be surprising if Nikon didn't replace the 300s within a year of the D7000 release as few people are going to buy a 300s in these circumstances (people are either buying a D7000 or waiting for a 300s replacement).
I also wouldn't categorize what I am saying as form OVER function, I would call it form AND function. Ergonomics can't be sold short, it is a very key issue for some people, and there is nothing wrong with that. I certainly look closely at it when I purchase all camera gear.